Review Article

Using Lean Process Improvement

to Enhance Safety and Value in
Orthopaedic Surgery: The Case of
Spine Surgery

Abstract
Rajiv Sethi, MD Lean methodology was developed in the manufacturing industry to
Vijay Yanamadala, MD increase output and decrease costs. These labor organization
methods have become the mainstay of major manufacturing
Douglas C. Burton, MD
companies worldwide. Lean methods involve continuous process
Robert Shay Bess, MD improvement through the systematic elimination of waste, prevention
of mistakes, and empowerment of workers to make changes. Because
of the profit and productivity gains made in the manufacturing arena
using lean methods, several healthcare organizations have adopted
lean methodologies for patient care. Lean methods have now been
implemented in many areas of health care. In orthopaedic surgery,
lean methods have been applied to reduce complication rates and
create a culture of continuous improvement. A step-by-step guide
based on our experience can help surgeons use lean methods in
practice. Surgeons and hospital centers well versed in lean
methodology will be poised to reduce complications, improve patient
outcomes, and optimize cost/benefit ratios for patient care.

T he manufacturing industry devel-

From the Neuroscience Institute,
Virginia Mason Medical Center,
Seattle, WA (Dr. Sethi and
Dr. Yanamadala), the Department of
Orthopaedic Surgery, University of
Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City,
KS (Dr. Burton), and the Denver
International Spine Center, Denver,
CO (Dr. Bess).
J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2017;25:
e244-e250
DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00030
Copyright 2017 by the American
Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
oped lean methodology to
increase output while decreasing
costs. Lean methods revolutionized
manufacturing in Japan, where
productivity gains led to Japanese
domination of the manufacturing
industry in the late 20th century.1
Today, American manufacturing
companies that use lean methods
include Boeing, Intel, Ford, Nike,
Caterpillar, John Deere, and
Kimberly-Clark. The service indus-
try has also adopted lean method-
ologies, although the core strategies
must be modified to fit the service
paradigm. Prominent examples
of service industry companies that
have used lean management include
Southwest Airlines, Taco Bell,
Fujitsu, and Walmart. Motivated by
the productivity and customer satis-
faction gains made with the use of
lean methods in the manufacturing
and service sectors, several health-
care organizations have attempted to
adopt these methods in patient care.2
Principles of Lean
Methodology
Many of the principles of the lean
methodology originated in Japan,
particularly in the Toyota Production
System (TPS).3 Lean methods center
around continuous process improve-
ment through incremental change
(kaizen in Japanese),4 systematic
elimination of waste, prevention of
mistakes, and empowerment of every
worker to stop the process if a

e244 Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Copyright ª the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Rajiv Sethi, MD, et al

deficiency is discovered in the system.
TPS hinges on the just-in-time prin-
ciple, whereby production should
perfectly match customer demand. At
a granular level of production, TPS
aims to perfectly match demand at
each step of production to prevent
waste.
Lean management relies on the
development of so-called standard
work, which is based on the concept
that any process can be categorized
into discrete steps. Each work step is
then detailed according to (1) the
responsible operator, or the person
conducting the work; (2) the task, or
the work itself; and (3) a check process
to ensure that the work is performed at
the expected level. Taiichi Ohno, one
of the originators of lean methods,
famously said, “Without standards,
there can be no improvement.”2 Any
work process is thus defined by the
standard work. Subsequent incre-
mental improvements are made in
each discrete step of the process to
improve the entire process. Ohno
defined five aspects of a lean process:
(1) defining value, in which managers
are responsible for identifying what is
valuable to the customer; (2) value
stream mapping, whereby managers
outline the standard process from the
standpoint of the value delivered in
each step of the process; (3) flow
optimization to maximize the value
delivered at each step; (4) pull,
whereby demand at the next step of a
process drives the flow of the pre-
vious step in the process; and (5)
continuous improvement through
serial, incremental changes.5
In the service industry, the concepts
of continuous improvement6 and
respect for people are central to the
application of lean management.
The focus remains on the reduction
of waste. In the service and infor-
mation industries, waste can be cat-
egorized into eight discrete types
similar to the seven areas defined for
waste in the manufacturing industry2
(Figure 1). In health care, the prin-
ciples of preventing mistakes and
maximizing customer value are par-
ticularly important.7
Lean Methods in Health
Care
Lean methods have been im-
plemented in nearly every type of
healthcare facility, from trauma hos-
pitals to pediatric centers; in systems
ranging from large health systems8,9
and academic centers10 to regional
medical centers11,12 and ambulatory
centers;13 and in fields such as nursing
care,14 laboratory,15 pathology,16
and radiology.17 These methods have
proved particularly powerful in sur-
gical arenas, including implant pro-
curement,18 perioperative care,19 and
standardization of operating room
management and work flow.20
One of the first healthcare institu-
tions that implemented lean methods
is Virginia Mason Medical Center in
Seattle, Washington.2 Beginning in
2002, the institution systematically
applied lean methods throughout the
medical center with dramatic results.
The Virginia Mason Production
System (VMPS)21 is an adaptation of
TPS to health care. As a result of the
VMPS, the incidence of ventilator-
associated pneumonia decreased
from 34 cases with five deaths in
2002 to 4 cases with one death in
2004, with subsequent annual savings
of $500,000.2 Over the next decade,
targeted value-focused improvements
throughout Virginia Mason Medical
Center led to systematic reductions in
cost and medical errors,20,22 extending
into orthopaedic surgery and spine
surgery.23
The Pittsburgh Regional Health Ini-
tiative similarly implemented lean
methods centered around the reduc-
tion of defects in the region’s medical
centers. One of the most striking
findings related to this effort of using
lean principles was the reduction of
central line infections by up to 90%
within 1 year of implementation.2
ThedaCare, a hospital group in Wis-
consin, saw similar gains in pro-
ductivity and quality through the
implementation of lean methods24
centered on the reduction of defects,
improved efficiency, and a culture
of change and respect for people.
ThedaCare reported $3.3 million
overall institutional savings attribut-
able to reduced waste in 2004 through
the implementation of basic lean
principles.24
These examples demonstrate that
successful implementation of lean
management depends on the adoption
of a culture that empowers each per-
son to examine processes and imple-
ment incremental changes to enable
continuous process improvement.

Dr. Sethi or an immediate family member serves as a paid consultant to K2M, NuVasive, and Orthofix; has received nonincome support
(such as equipment or services), commercially derived honoraria, or other non–research-related funding (such as paid travel) from K2M; and
serves as a board member, owner, officer, or committee member of the Scoliosis Research Society and the Washington State Orthopaedic
Association. Dr. Burton or an immediate family member has received royalties from and serves as a paid consultant to DePuy Synthes; has
received research or institutional support from Bioventus, DePuy Synthes, and Pfizer; and serves as a board member, owner, officer, or
committee member of the Scoliosis Research Society. Dr. Bess or an immediate family member has received royalties from K2M and RTI
Surgical; is a member of a speakers’ bureau or has made paid presentations on behalf of and serves as a paid consultant to K2M; has
received research or institutional support from DePuy Synthes, K2M, Medtronic Sofamor Danek, NuVasive, Stryker, and Zimmer Biomet;
and serves as a board member, owner, officer, or committee member of the North American Spine Society and the Scoliosis Research
Society. Neither Dr. Yanamadala nor any immediate family member has received anything of value from or has stock or stock options held in
a commercial company or institution related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

November 2017, Vol 25, No 11 e245

Copyright ª the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Using Lean Process Improvement to Enhance Safety and Value in Orthopaedic Surgery
Figure 1
Diagram showing the eight types of information waste, adapted from Taiichi Ohno’s original seven areas of waste.
The highest levels of leadership within
the lean system must be involved in
creating and supporting a culture of
change within the organization.
Leadership within the lean system
must also enable a systematic
approach to analyzing current pro-
cesses, devising changes, and assessing
the results of process improvements.
Because lean processes are continually
evolving, the VMPS uses a system to
track implemented changes and the
subsequent effects of these changes on
the work process over time.
Lean Methods in Spine
Surgery
Reported rates of intraoperative
adverse events in complex spine sur-
gery and spine deformity surgery are as
high as 10%.25-32 Overall complica-
tion rates range from 25% to 80%,33
including intraoperative and post-
e246
Copyright ª the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
operative mortality; transient and
permanent neurologic deficits; myo-
cardial infarction; systemic infection,
including pneumonia and urinary
tract infection; and surgical site infec-
tion. Therefore, the standardized
protocols that are part of lean process
improvement offer potential benefits
in the field of complex spine surgery.
The Seattle Spine Team approach is an
example of the systematic utilization
of lean methods in complex spine
surgery.34 Although many centers
have developed individualized proto-
cols to address individual complica-
tions,35-39 the Seattle Spine Team
approach40 uses a value stream map
that incorporates preoperative, peri-
operative, and postoperative care into
a single process to improve the quality
and ultimately the value of care
delivered to the patient (Figure 2).
In the Seattle Spine Team approach,
the first goal is defining value, as is the
case in all forms of lean methodology.
Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
This process requires a multidisci-
plinary approach involving the key
service providers (eg, surgeons,
anesthesiologists, physiatrists, inter-
nists, pain specialists, nurses, oper-
ating room staff, physician assistants)
and the customer (ie, the patient).
Participating together in a rapid
process improvement workshop, the
key service providers collectively
define the value, which in this
approach is defined as delivering the
safest and most effective complex
spine surgery at the lowest cost.
The next step involves the creation
of a value stream map, which delin-
eates each of the steps involved in
delivering the defined value (see
Supplemental Digital Content 1,
Current state map showing the dis-
charge process after complex spine
surgery, http://links.lww.com/
JAAOS/A55). This iterative process
results in the creation of a current
state map. Each area is studied in
 Rajiv Sethi, MD, et al

detail to identify waste in the pro- Figure 2

cess. Depending on the focus of a
particular improvement process,
each step is delineated as broadly or
as specifically as necessary. For
example, in the value stream map
depicted in Supplemental Digital
Content 1, the patient’s intra-
operative care is delineated broadly,
whereas the postoperative care is
depicted granularly (see Supplemen-
tal Digital Content 1, Current state
map showing the discharge process
after complex spine surgery, http://
links.lww.com/JAAOS/A55). Thus,
this particular value stream map
allows focused intervention at the
level of the patient’s postoperative
care. Each part of the postoperative
care is delineated with respect to the
person performing the task, the task
performed, how it is performed, and
how it is evaluated. The first step, as
depicted in the value stream, is per-
formed by the admitting nurse (RN)
on postoperative day (POD) 0. The
nurse carries out admission docu-
mentation and regular patient checks
as depicted in the box. Each step in
this value stream may be performed
in parallel or in series with respect to
the other steps, and hence they are
not depicted with any particular Diagram showing the key components of the Seattle Spine Team approach.
ordering scheme. All steps must be Each process is designed specifically to optimize and standardize preoperative,
intraoperative, and postoperative care for patients undergoing complex spine
completed for the discharge process
surgery. (Adapted with permission from Buchlak QD, Yanamadala V, Leveque
to take place. JC, Sethi R: Complication avoidance with pre-operative screening: Insights from
After a value stream map is created, the Seattle spine team. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2016;9[3]:316-326.)
each step is studied rigorously. A
method such as the VMPS involves the
assessment of waste from the stand- munication with the personnel current state map, http://links.lww.
point of time, resources, and person- involved in each process to ensure com/JAAOS/A56). Color coding
nel. Managers quantify the time, best-practice process improvement. allows stratification of areas for
resources, and personnel required for The people involved in the tasks (eg, improvement according to any
each step and identify any sources of nurse, physician assistant, physical number of subcategories, including
waste in the process. Next, areas of therapist) are interviewed in the set- by the operator, the location of the
possible intervention for improvement ting of a process improvement task, or the timing of the task.
are identified and visually overlaid workshop. They identify areas where A future state map is then created to
onto the value stream map (see Sup- tasks are hindered by the existing identify the ideal value stream that is
plemental Digital Content 2, Clouds processes. These insights are docu- expected to exist after appropriate
overlaid on the current state map, mented as clouds on the value stream process improvements have been
http://links.lww.com/JAAOS/A56). map as seen in Supplemental Digital made. The future state value stream is
The mapping of areas for Content 2 (see Supplemental Digital codified as standard work, meaning
improvement requires direct com- Content 2, Clouds overlaid on the that each part of the value stream is

November 2017, Vol 25, No 11 e247

Copyright ª the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Using Lean Process Improvement to Enhance Safety and Value in Orthopaedic Surgery

Figure 3

Chart showing the standard process for the work of the patient’s nurse on the day of discharge. Each operator involved in a
given process has an associated standard process that defines the specific operator’s responsibilities within the overall
process. PA = physician assistant, RN = registered nurse, WIP = work in progress

specifically defined at a granular
level, a responsible operator is as-
signed for each step, and perfor-
mance of proper quality checks is
ensured (Figure 3). This codification
of the work process ensures that the
new value stream will actually be
performed and that improvements
will be maintained over time.
After the desired interventions are
implemented by ground-level per-
sonnel, the time, resources, and per-
sonnel required for each step are
again quantified. Assessment of these
parameters over time enables man-
agers to judge the level of improve-
ment and its sustainability. When the
future state is achieved, it becomes

e248 Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Copyright ª the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the new current state from which
further improvements can be made in
turn. Thus, the value stream map
creates a guide for improvement, and
the series of current state and future
state maps provide a timeline of
improvements in the process. This
method allows for seamless integra-
tion of improvements in a way that
individual improvement programs
would not afford.
Although codification of the work
process facilitates continual improve-
ment through serial change, ultimately
a culture of change at the organiza-
tional level is required to successfully
implement this paradigm. At Virginia
Mason Medical Center, where the Se-
attle Spine Team approach was im-
plemented, the overall complication
rate for complex spine surgery was
reduced from 52% to 16%.40,41
Importantly, this rate was sustained
over a 5-year period through contin-
uous improvement of preoperative
screening, intraoperative communica-
tion, and postoperative care path-
ways.35 Without the support of a
culture of change and continued
observation, these changes could have
reverted over time.
One example of an area in which
lean management can translate
directly to success in complex spine
care is reducing the need for
unplanned secondary surgery.40,41
The creation of value streams in
which all team members are aligned
can lead to enhanced communica-
tion preoperatively and intra-
operatively. The optimization of
preoperative communication means
that important patient factors, such
as obesity, smoking, and suboptimal
bone density, can be appropriately
managed before surgery. Intra-
operatively, surgical teams can
standardize their communication
according to team-based protocols.
We think that the implementation of
these types of processes at Virginia
Mason Medical Center ultimately
explains the substantial decrease in
November 2017, Vol 25, No 11
Copyright ª the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
complications leading to the need for
secondary surgery.
The Future of Lean Methods
in Orthopaedic Surgery
Systemwide improvements are cru-
cial to the improvement of value in
complex orthopaedic surgery.6 The
Seattle Spine Team experience dem-
onstrates that lean methods are
effective in reducing complications
and improving the value of care
delivered. Each center must develop
its own value stream upon which
to base its process improvements.
Although the Seattle Spine Team
approach offers a guide to the
development of such a system, direct
implementation of this approach
without attention to an individual
center’s culture, practices, and patient
population will likely lead to a sub-
optimal process. Individualized
improvement processes at each center
where complex orthopaedic surgery
is performed will ultimately lead to
global process improvement in the
field.
Lean methodology can be em-
ployed first to reduce variation
within orthopaedic centers. Implant
inventory and processing is an
important function in which the im-
plementation of standard work pro-
cesses can result in substantial
reduction of waste and inefficiency.20
A standard process has been devel-
oped at Virginia Mason Medical
Center to understand the indications
for both simple and complex spine
surgery.23 In this process, all pro-
posed lumbar fusion and adult spinal
deformity surgical procedures are
expected to undergo a multidisci-
plinary approval process in which all
healthcare professionals are given an
equal voice and the indications are
standardized according to the best
possible implementation of evidence-
based medicine. The equal votes of
all healthcare professionals involved
Rajiv Sethi, MD, et al
in the process embodies the concept
of respect for people that is central to
the lean methodology. Finally, lean
methods can be applied to reduce
variation among the order sets of
orthopaedic surgeons in any given
center, such as in the use of drugs (eg,
antibiotics, tranexamic acid, phar-
macologic thromboembolic pro-
phylaxis), devices (eg, types of hip
and knee implants), and post-
operative mobilization protocols.
The use of rapid process improve-
ment workshops can allow for the
variability that is necessary for safe
patient care while eliminating
unnecessarily variable processes that
can add waste, contribute to ineffi-
ciency, and result in a negative
patient experience.
Summary
Lean methodology has evolved from
its origins in manufacturing and has
been applied broadly in health care.
Specific examples of implementation
in complex spine surgery and ortho-
paedic surgery demonstrate that lean
methods can assist surgeons and
centers as they attempt to enhance
the safety and value of orthopaedic
care.
References
Evidence-based Medicine: Levels of
evidence are described in the table of
contents. In this article, references
20, 28, 31, and 41 are level III
studies. References 1, 2, 4-19, 21-23,
25-27, 29, 30, and 32-40 are level IV
studies.
References printed in bold type are
those published within the past 5
years.
1. Call R: ‘Lean’ approach gives greater
efficiency. Health Estate 2014;68(2):23-25.
2. Kim CS, Spahlinger DA, Kin JM, Billi JE:
Lean health care: What can hospitals learn
from a world-class automaker? J Hosp Med
2006;1(3):191-199.
e249
Using Lean Process Improvement to Enhance Safety and Value in Orthopaedic Surgery
3. Spear SJ: Learning to lead at Toyota. Harv
Bus Rev 2004;82(5):78-86, 151.
4. Clark DM, Silvester K, Knowles S: Lean
management systems: Creating a culture of
continuous quality improvement. J Clin
Pathol 2013;66(8):638-643.
5. Womack JP, Jones DT: Lean consumption.
Harv Bus Rev 2005;83(3):58-68, 148.
6. Girdler SJ, Glezos CD, Link TM, Sharan A:
The science of quality improvement. JBJS
Rev 2016;4(8).
7. Weinstock D: Lean healthcare. J Med Pract
Manage 2008;23(6):339-341.
8. Jimmerson C, Weber D, Sobek DK II:
Reducing waste and errors: Piloting lean
principles at Intermountain Healthcare. Jt
Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2005;31(5):
249-257.
9. Kinsman L, Rotter T, Stevenson K, et al:
“The largest Lean transformation in the
world”: The implementation and
evaluation of lean in Saskatchewan
healthcare. Healthc Q 2014;17(2):29-32.
10. Blayney DW: Measuring and improving
quality of care in an academic medical
center. J Oncol Pract 2013;9(3):138-141.
11. Pittsburgh Regional Healthcare Initiative
puts new spin on improving healthcare
quality. Qual Lett Healthc Lead 2002;14
(11):2-11, 1.
12. Brown T, Duthe R: Getting ‘Lean’:
Hardwiring process excellence into
Northeast Health. J Healthc Inf Manag
2009;23(1):34-38.
13. Casey JT, Brinton TS, Gonzalez CM:
Utilization of lean management principles
in the ambulatory clinic setting. Nat Clin
Pract Urol 2009;6(3):146-153.
14. Serembus JF, Meloy F, Posmontier B: Learning
from business: Incorporating the Toyota
Production System into nursing curricula.
Nurs Clin North Am 2012;47(4):503-516.
15. Rutledge J, Xu M, Simpson J: Application
of the Toyota Production System improves
core laboratory operations. Am J Clin
Pathol 2010;133(1):24-31.
16. Serrano L, Hegge P, Sato B, Richmond B,
Stahnke L: Using LEAN principles to
improve quality, patient safety, and
workflow in histology and anatomic
pathology. Adv Anat Pathol 2010;17(3):
215-221.
17. Stapleton FB, Hendricks J, Hagan P,
DelBeccaro M: Modifying the Toyota
Production System for continuous
performance improvement in an academic
children’s hospital. Pediatr Clin North Am
2009;56(4):799-813.
18. Teichgräber UK, de Bucourt M: Applying
value stream mapping techniques to
eliminate non-value-added waste for the
procurement of endovascular stents. Eur J
Radiol 2012;81(1):e47-e52.
e250
Copyright ª the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
19. Burkitt KH, Mor MK, Jain R, et al: Toyota
production system quality improvement
initiative improves perioperative antibiotic
therapy. Am J Manag Care 2009;15(9):
633-642.
20. Bradywood A, Farrokhi F, Williams B,
Kowalczyk M, Blackmore CC: Reduction
of inpatient hospital length of stay in
lumbar fusion patients with
implementation of an evidence-based
clinical care pathway. Spine (Phila Pa
1976) 2017;42(3):169-176.
21. Nelson-Peterson DL, Leppa CJ: Creating an
environment for caring using lean
principles of the Virginia Mason
Production System. J Nurs Adm 2007;37
(6):287-294.
22. Kaplan GS, Patterson SH: Seeking
perfection in healthcare: A case study in
adopting Toyota Production System
methods. Healthc Exec 2008;23(3):16-18,
20-21.
23. Yanamadala V, Kim Y, Buchlak QD, et al:
Multidisciplinary evaluation leads to the
decreased utilization of lumbar spine
fusion: An observational cohort pilot study.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017; January 6
[Epub ahead of print].
24. Institute for Healthcare Improvement:
Innovation series 2005: Going lean in health
care. https://www.entnet.org/sites/default/
files/GoingLeaninHealthCareWhitePaper-3.
pdf. Accessed August 31, 2017.
25. Rampersaud YR, Moro ER, Neary MA,
et al: Intraoperative adverse events and
related postoperative complications in spine
surgery: Implications for enhancing patient
safety founded on evidence-based
protocols. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31
(13):1503-1510.
26. Bertram W, Harding I: Complications of
spinal deformity and spinal stenosis surgery
in adults greater than 50 years old.
Orthopaedic Proceedings 2012;94(suppl
X):105.
27. Booth KC, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Baldus
CR, Blanke KM: Complications and
predictive factors for the successful
treatment of flatback deformity (fixed
sagittal imbalance). Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
1999;24(16):1712-1720.
28. Cho SK, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al:
Major complications in revision adult
deformity surgery: Risk factors and clinical
outcomes with 2- to 7-year follow-up. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37(6):489-500.
29. Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Cheh G, Stobbs G,
Bridwell KH: Adult spinal deformity
surgery: Complications and outcomes in
patients over age 60. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
2007;32(20):2238-2244.
30. Glassman SD, Hamill CL, Bridwell KH,
Schwab FJ, Dimar JR, Lowe TG: The
impact of perioperative complications on
clinical outcome in adult deformity surgery.
Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32(24):
2764-2770.
31. Schwab FJ, Hawkinson N, Lafage V, et al;
International Spine Study Group: Risk
factors for major peri-operative
complications in adult spinal deformity
surgery: A multi-center review of 953
consecutive patients. Eur Spine J 2012;21
(12):2603-2610.
32. Lenke LG, Fehlings MG, Shaffrey CI,
Cheung KM, Carreon LY: Prospective,
multicenter assessment of acute neurologic
complications following complex adult
spinal deformity surgery: The Scoli-Risk-1
trial. Spine J 2013;13(9 suppl):S67.
33. Acosta FL Jr, McClendon J Jr,
O’Shaughnessy BA, et al: Morbidity and
mortality after spinal deformity surgery in
patients 75 years and older: Complications
and predictive factors. J Neurosurg Spine
2011;15(6):667-674.
34. Buchlak QD, Yanamadala V, Leveque JC,
Sethi R: Complication avoidance with pre-
operative screening: Insights from the
Seattle spine team. Curr Rev Musculoskelet
Med 2016;9(3):316-326.
35. Allen RT, Rihn JA, Glassman SD, Currier
B, Albert TJ, Phillips FM: An evidence-
based approach to spine surgery. Am J Med
Qual 2009;24(6 suppl):15S-24S.
36. Ames CP, Barry JJ, Keshavarzi S, Dede O,
Weber MH, Deviren V: Perioperative
outcomes and complications of pedicle
subtraction osteotomy in cases with single
versus two attending surgeons. Spine
Deform 2013;1(1):51-58.
37. Baig MN, Lubow M, Immesoete P, Bergese
SD, Hamdy EA, Mendel E: Vision loss after
spine surgery: Review of the literature and
recommendations. Neurosurg Focus 2007;
23(5):E15.
38. Baldus CR, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG,
Okubadejo GO: Can we safely reduce
blood loss during lumbar pedicle
subtraction osteotomy procedures using
tranexamic acid or aprotinin? A
comparative study with controls. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35(2):235-239.
39. Urban MK, Beckman J, Gordon M,
Urquhart B, Boachie-Adjei O: The efficacy
of antifibrinolytics in the reduction of blood
loss during complex adult reconstructive
spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;
26(10):1152-1156.
40. Sethi RK, Pong RP, Leveque JC, Dean TC,
Olivar SJ, Rupp SM: The Seattle spine team
approach to adult deformity surgery: A
systems-based approach to perioperative
care and subsequent reduction in
perioperative complication rates. Spine
Deform 2014;2(2):95-103.
41. Sethi R, Buchlak QD, Yanamadala V, et al:
A systematic multidisciplinary initiative for
reducing the risk of complications in adult
scoliosis surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2017;
26(6):744-750.